Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does so comprehensively: the restaurant is not notified yet, a confirmation email with a link is sent, the link expires in 24 hours, and this is a request not a confirmed booking. These are critical behaviors beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is relatively concise given the amount of critical information conveyed. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it slightly repeats schema descriptions (e.g., email, requestedAt) which could be trimmed to be more efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the workflow well, explaining the asynchronous nature and the need for user action. However, it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., a request ID), which is a minor gap for completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter; it only reiterates some details (e.g., email gets link, requestedAt must be future). Thus, no additional value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Request a table at a restaurant' and distinguishes itself by emphasizing it is a request, not a confirmed booking, which differentiates it from siblings like 'create_booking'. It specifies the exact workflow: the restaurant is not notified until the confirmation link is clicked.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use this tool (for requesting a table) and warns about the non-confirmed nature. It instructs to tell the user to check their inbox and use a real email address. It implicitly contrasts with confirmed booking tools but does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.